19.01.2014 Views

SEXUAL HEALTH AND HUMAN RIGHTS A legal and ... - The ICHRP

SEXUAL HEALTH AND HUMAN RIGHTS A legal and ... - The ICHRP

SEXUAL HEALTH AND HUMAN RIGHTS A legal and ... - The ICHRP

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

nullification of discriminatory laws against sexual minorities <strong>and</strong> the introduction of<br />

protective legislation 60 . Nepal’s Country Code, a comprehensive legislation that includes<br />

criminal law provisions, explicitly criminalizes bestiality but also ambiguously punishes<br />

‘unnatural’ sexual intercourse 61 . Nepal also has a system of citizenship wherein on the age of<br />

attaining majority any male or female in Nepal who satisfies certain domiciliary <strong>and</strong> ethnic<br />

conditions can apply <strong>and</strong> obtain a citizenship card. This card provides several entitlements<br />

including ration, passport, public employment opportunities, <strong>and</strong> residential rights. However,<br />

since the law permits persons to register only as male or female, metis, transgendered persons<br />

in Nepal, are effectively left out of such basic citizenship entitlements. <strong>The</strong> petitioner sought<br />

an order from the court which recognized the fundamental right to equality for metis so that<br />

they may obtain citizenship rights. <strong>The</strong> petitioner argued that transgendered persons are<br />

human beings too who should be recognized as such <strong>and</strong> have access to all rights entitled to<br />

males or females. <strong>The</strong> Supreme Court issued a “show cause” notice to the defendants, the<br />

Nepal government, Prime Minister <strong>and</strong> Council of Ministers, the Ministry of Law & Justice<br />

<strong>and</strong> the Parliament Secretariat. All the defendants responded by raising one main argument:<br />

that there was no need for special <strong>legal</strong> protection of the petitioners since the Interim<br />

Constitution guaranteed the right to non-discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, caste,<br />

origin, race, language or belief within which the petitioner’s rights were protected as such.<br />

<strong>The</strong> court relied considerably on international judicial <strong>and</strong> legislative developments related to<br />

the rights of sexual minorities while passing judgment. It also based its reasoning on<br />

comparative constitutional <strong>and</strong> <strong>legal</strong> provisions recognizing persons of a third gender,<br />

scientific evidence about the immutability of sexual orientation, <strong>and</strong> academic articles on the<br />

issue of sexual orientation. <strong>The</strong> judgment is unclear regarding the distinction between sexual<br />

orientation <strong>and</strong> gender identity. It relied on definitions <strong>and</strong> articulations provided in several<br />

documents, including the Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human<br />

Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation <strong>and</strong> Gender Identity. It also described<br />

observations of the High Court of the UK <strong>and</strong> the Australian Family Court regarding gender<br />

identity, the European Court of Human Rights in relation to transexuality <strong>and</strong> the South<br />

African Constitutional Court in relation to sexual orientation in the case of <strong>The</strong> National<br />

Coalition for Gay & Lesbian Equality & Others v Minister of Justice & Others. Traversing<br />

case law of the US Supreme Court (Lawrence v Texas) <strong>and</strong> the Constitutional Court of<br />

Ecuador, the Court observed:<br />

“… it seems that the traditional norms <strong>and</strong> values in regards to the sex, sexuality,<br />

sexual orientation <strong>and</strong> gender identity have been changing gradually. It also<br />

seems that the concept specifying that the gender identity should be determined<br />

60 Unlike some other jurisdictions where courts do not have the authority to direct the legislature to enact<br />

legislation, in Nepal the Supreme Court exercises such authority, <strong>and</strong> has done so in the past, such as in a case<br />

related to enforced disappearances in July 2007. It is unclear where such authority emanates from – the authors<br />

were unable to locate constitutional source for this exercise of power by the Nepal Supreme Court.<br />

61 Part 4, Chapter 16 of Nepal’s Country Code states: “Sex with animals<br />

No 1: No one may penetrate an animal or make an animal penetrate him/her or may do or make another person<br />

do any kind of unnatural sex.<br />

No 2: If someone penetrates a cow among female animals one may be sentenced to two years jail <strong>and</strong> if not the<br />

cow then one year jail or 500 Nrs fine.<br />

No 3: If a woman makes an animal penetrate her, she may be sentenced to one-year jail or 500 Nrs fine.<br />

No 4: In this chapter, not mentioned in other sections, anyone who does or makes someone practice unnatural<br />

sex may be sentenced to one-year jail or 5000 Nrs fine.<br />

No 5: All the cases related to the law written in this chapter need to be reported within one year of the act taking<br />

place.”<br />

22

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!